A significant part of a marathon High Court case by aircraft lessors against insurers over jets stranded in Russia following sanctions imposed in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine has been settled, a judge was told on Thursday.
The case, which began last June and has run for more than 100 days, was brought by a number of lessors against dozens of insurers around the world over losses of at least $8 billion (€7.7 billion) after more than 400 planes were stranded in Russia when sanctions forced the termination of their leases.
The insurers and reinsurers, including names such as Lloyds, Chubb, AIG and Fidelis, were sued as providers of “all risks” policies, “war risks” policies or as providers of both.
On Thursday, the court was told that cases against the war risks defendants had been settled this week.
‘No question’ Paddy Cosgrave knew about complaint against former Web Summit director
Eddie Jordan: Business maverick, wannabe rock star, Formula One legend
Tesla-owning taxi drivers in Germany squeezed as customers boycott Musk’s cars
Are you a waffler, a bore or a sharp shooter? How to improve your workplace communication
Last month, two of the world’s largest aircraft lessors, Avolon and BOC Aviation, settled their actions.
The case at one stage involved an estimated 180 lawyers and special facilities were provided in an off-Four Courts facility in Phoenix House, Smithfield, to accommodate the high numbers. An overspill remote access facility using the Trialview online system was also used.
On Thursday, Eileen Barrington SC, for SMBC and CDB Aviation, told Ms Justice Eileen Roberts her clients had reached agreement with Fidelis and Ping An insurers.
It means, she said, these defendants were absolved from having to comply with court directions in relation to making closing submissions in the case.
Ms Barrington said her clients were also “at an advanced stage of resolution” with Chubb.
Given the changing circumstances of the case, counsel asked for an adjustment of the timeline so that submissions could be tailored to reflect the change, she said.
While certain defendants were consenting to this approach, others were not, she said.
Lawyers for a number of the war risks defendants thanked the judge and said they were now leaving the case.
Paul Sreenan SC, for the remaining all risks defendants, said he also appeared for Ping An in relation to all risks but he had been unable to get instructions as to whether the settlement was in relation to purely the war risks or the all risks.
Mr Sreenan urged the judge to stick to the current timetable fixed by the court some weeks ago as submissions were ready to go.
What was of concern here was that there appeared to be some attempt to gain “a tactical advantage over the all risks defendants”, he said.
The plaintiffs had sued both the war risks and all risks defendants and having settled with the war risks, what they really want is to take time to take the case they made against war risk defendants and make it against the all risk defendants, he said.
That was unfair to his clients particularly as the plaintiffs had had plenty of time since the case started last June to settle, he said.
John Lucey SC, for defendants solely related to the SMBC case, said he echoed Mr Sreenan’s objections.
In reply, Ms Barrington rejected the claim there was unfairness in what she was proposing or that her side was trying to get a tactical advantage. It was possibly “heightened paranoia” to suggest there was going to be “100 per cent pivoting” of the case that was being presented to the court, she said.
The parties had done their best throughout the case to reach a settlement, she said.
Ms Justice Roberts said the departure of the war risks defendants was a significant event in that she had been urged by all the parties to focus her attention on the war risks issue.
Now that element of the case was gone, it presents a slightly different scenario, she said.
She was prepared to allow a period of time for tailored submissions to deal with the changed circumstances. She understood the concerns that this may convey a tactical advantage but there was “no denying the reality of what has happened”.
The submissions and any judgment the court will give will have to reflect the reality of what remains in the proceedings at the end, she said.
She adjourned the matter to next week.
